a speaker arrangement idea

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I saw these "On Stage" tilt stands in a guitar center catalog:

http://www.americanmusical.com/item--i-MUS-RS7000.html

I was thinking if you placed studio monitors on them, it would bounce
the forward sound off the ceiling at an angle, and bounce the sound
backward off the floor.

So you would get all sorts of angular ray-tracing going on, and the
reflected sound would bounce around on all sorts of walls before it got
to your ears, and by that time it would be completely dispersed.

Also, I'm guessing you could put a sub between them on one of these
stands and it would help time-align the sub with the two main speakers.

So assuming you don't have interference from a desk, could this be a
good idea from a sound-wave/accuracy/room-optimization standpoint?
13 answers Last reply
More about speaker arrangement idea
  1. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Mr. Dorsey, could you elaborate a bit further? I know from your
    previous posts that you like a bit of diffusion and monitor on
    Magnepans.

    I'm wondering if the person likes a close range, direct sound, why this
    wouldn't be a good solution.

    I'm particularly not understanding why this arrangement would smear
    transients if you listen at close range.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    as a further elaboration, when i'm concentrating on things of a general
    nature, i like to ponder by tilting my head down a bit. this could be
    anything from pondering a math problem to figuring out a murky jazz
    piano chord by listening to a cd.

    with my head tilted down in "thinking position" my ears would be on a
    straight path with respect to the drivers.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    <genericaudioperson@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >So you would get all sorts of angular ray-tracing going on, and the
    >reflected sound would bounce around on all sorts of walls before it got
    >to your ears, and by that time it would be completely dispersed.

    Thus destroying imaging and smearing any transients.

    Honestly, a little room sound is okay, but not too much.
    --scott


    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  4. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    those old cube things?

    i had a pair of NS-10's (another "legend" in non-linearity magic). i
    guess i was in a small group of people that neither loved nor hated
    them. i thought they were fine and sold them to a more eager soul once
    i saw that the paper woofers were becoming an endangered species.

    i've never mixed on the cubes (i think i was in a few rooms in LA back
    in the day that had them), so i don't know what all the fuss is.

    i do seem to like speakers that cost $5000. i've tried several
    different types of speakers, and the common denominator between the
    ones i thought were awesome was that they were all expensive.

    the current thought I have in my head is a pair of Lipinski 707's being
    driven by a pass labs x250 with the mated subwoofer. upstream from that
    would be the Nautilus Commander.
  5. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    <genericaudioperson@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >Mr. Dorsey, could you elaborate a bit further? I know from your
    >previous posts that you like a bit of diffusion and monitor on
    >Magnepans.

    Yes. The magnepans have a rear lobe that is out of phase with the
    front stuff. This gives a rather distant presentation, but with a
    good solid image.

    >I'm wondering if the person likes a close range, direct sound, why this
    >wouldn't be a good solution.

    If you like a close, forward, and direct sound, you want to be hearing as
    little of the room ambience as possible. That means hearing directly
    from the speakers, and it means speakers with as narrow dispersion as
    possible. The narrow dispersion and direct positioning is part of why
    soffit-mounted horns are so forward.

    >I'm particularly not understanding why this arrangement would smear
    >transients if you listen at close range.

    If you are listening at close range, ie. in the nearfield, it doesn't
    matter. But positioning the speakers so they point anywhere but your
    ears is a bad idea because you're exciting the room excessively.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  6. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <1115332174.335086.224830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
    genericaudioperson@hotmail.com wrote:

    > I saw these "On Stage" tilt stands in a guitar center catalog:
    >
    > http://www.americanmusical.com/item--i-MUS-RS7000.html
    >
    > I was thinking if you placed studio monitors on them, it would bounce
    > the forward sound off the ceiling at an angle, and bounce the sound
    > backward off the floor.
    >
    > So you would get all sorts of angular ray-tracing going on, and the
    > reflected sound would bounce around on all sorts of walls before it got
    > to your ears, and by that time it would be completely dispersed.
    >
    > Also, I'm guessing you could put a sub between them on one of these
    > stands and it would help time-align the sub with the two main speakers.
    >
    > So assuming you don't have interference from a desk, could this be a
    > good idea from a sound-wave/accuracy/room-optimization standpoint?
    >

    When measured anechoically most monitors aren't placed on stands of this
    sort, AFAIK anyway. And any efforts to time-align the two drivers (most
    studio monitors are 2way) will be wasted by changing the angle they are
    placed. Not to mention off axis response/phase of the system.

    Or it could be helping the system, there's no way to tell unless you set
    it up and measure from the monitoring position.

    This idea of course is a link or two in the chain before sound even
    comes out of the drivers.. so this isn't considering any type of room
    interactions that you've mentioned.

    hth,

    --
    Cyrus

    *coughcasaucedoprodigynetcough*
  7. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    >> I'm particularly not understanding why this arrangement would smear
    >> transients if you listen at close range.


    > If you are listening at close range, ie. in the nearfield, it doesn't
    > matter. But positioning the speakers so they point anywhere but your
    > ears is a bad idea because you're exciting the room excessively.
    > --scott

    I think maybe the guy wants a pair of 901's...
  8. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On 5/5/05 10:16 PM, in article BEA04BB4.7475%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com,
    "SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote:

    >
    > I think maybe the guy wants a pair of 901's...

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

    901's... Auratones...901's...Auratones...

    Think about it...
  9. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    <genericaudioperson@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1115332174.335086.224830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > I saw these "On Stage" tilt stands in a guitar center catalog:
    >
    > http://www.americanmusical.com/item--i-MUS-RS7000.html

    I work with a couple of bands that have three guitarists in each... they
    all use these things religiously and set their amps along the front line
    monitor wedges facing rearward, toward the back of the stage. This
    makes FOH a breeze and makes the band happy to be able to hear
    each other.

    > I was thinking if you placed studio monitors on them...

    Don't go there... ;-)

    DM
  10. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    genericaudioperson@hotmail.com wrote:

    > I saw these "On Stage" tilt stands in a guitar center catalog:

    > http://www.americanmusical.com/item--i-MUS-RS7000.html

    First I looked for how the upper part gets the angle adjusted, and it
    doesn't, which means that they are not in my opinion quite as good at
    what they are intended for as they could be.

    > I was thinking if you placed studio monitors on them,
    > it would bounce the forward sound off the ceiling at an angle,

    Yeees.

    > and bounce the sound backward off the floor.

    I am not sure I understand what you mean, but I'll say nooo anyway.

    > So you would get all sorts of angular ray-tracing going on,
    > and the reflected sound would bounce around on all sorts of
    > walls before it got to your ears, and by that time it would
    > be completely dispersed.

    Back when CBS just had discovered multimiking a guy called Bose was
    quite displeased with how it sounded when he played a record. He
    therefore constructed a loudspeaker that did just what you describe and
    the result was a pleasant sonic image in the living room. The main, not
    the only, but the main problem was/is that one gets the same sonic
    perspective on all records, and not the one that is on them.

    What Bose got very right was the understanding of the importance of the
    relationship between direct and recorded sound, there is something to
    learn for a sound recordist in the old Bose publications, but fixing the
    recording at the playback end by introducing additional early
    reflections from the room is the procedure known as introducing a new
    error rather than fixing what is originally wrong.

    Karlsson in Sweden also had a fair amount of luck with
    semi-omnidirectional loudspakers, in fact the first time I heard what
    real stereo is about was when listening to Beethoven's third on a pair
    of Karlsson boxes at a friends of my fathers house in Stockholm.

    > So assuming you don't have interference from a desk, could this be a
    > good idea from a sound-wave/accuracy/room-optimization standpoint?

    Summary of the above: NO! - you do need ambience and you do need natural
    reflections in the room you monitor in, but you should try to avoid
    additional very early reflections because they mess the stereo imaging
    and perspective up and may cause frequency response issues that can
    suppress or exaggerate natural formants and thus cause balancing errors.

    Your hearing is quite good at autocorrelating soft frequency response
    deviations away, but sharp/steep ones will tend to fool it because they
    are dissimlar from the constantly occurring changes in the way the ear
    works due to temporary threshold shifts and wax-amount in the ear canal.
    An amazing construction ... imagine a mic manufacturer giving up on
    getting the capsule response right and instead adding autocorrecting
    circutry that knows how sound generally is supposed to to sound, if it
    doesn't sound like that the perception is fixed, which is why you need
    some time, not very long, to adjust to another set of loudspeakers.


    Kind regards

    Peter Larsen

    --
    *******************************************
    * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
    *******************************************
  11. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    thanks Mr. Larson,

    I understood some of that, but you lost me at the end.

    When I say "bounce off the floor backward" what I mean is this: bass
    response is omnidirectional, and even a really stiff cabinet will still
    throw some stuff backwards. So since the cabinet is at an angle to the
    floor, it will bounce off the floor at an angle, and then travel futher
    backward. kind of like a "bounce pass" in basketball.

    basically, what i'm thinking is this: let's say a studio designer makes
    the back wall slanted so the sound deflects at an angle rather than
    bouncing straight back at the listener. tilting the speaker cabinet on
    a slant stand will have a similar effect. the sound will hit the
    ceiling at an angle and then bounce in all myriad of directions. so
    you don't get slap back.

    the advantages to doing this seem so obvious to me, but people who are
    much smarter than me keep indicating problems that i don't understand.
    i feel simultaneously smart and dumb right now. kind of strange.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    genericaudioperson@hotmail.com wrote:

    > When I say "bounce off the floor backward" what I mean is this:
    > bass response is omnidirectional

    Already from this it follows that cabinet angle with respect to floor is
    irrelevant in the context of what you want to address.

    > basically, what i'm thinking is this: let's say a studio
    > designer makes the back wall slanted so the sound deflects
    > at an angle rather than bouncing straight back at the listener.

    This is to prevent a midrange problem called flutter echo, the
    twaaaangggg of an empty concrete room is an example of that type of
    reverb.

    > ceiling at an angle and then bounce in all myriad of directions.
    > so you don't get slap back.

    Slap back does not apply in the bass range, it is - as indicated above -
    a midrange thing.

    > the advantages to doing this seem so obvious to me,

    With all due respect - it is a very good question to ask - you need to
    understand that what you suggest is intended to help with a bass problem
    that does not exist because of the large wavelength of bass compared to
    the wavelength of the room.

    Bass does not zingG around in a living room sized room like rays from
    Flash Gordons ray gun. Midrange occasionally does, also low midrange is
    likely to suffer from frequency response issues in case it is influenced
    by reflections from wall, floor or ceiling.

    Very many room response measurements contain a dip around 250 Hz caused
    by the first reflection from the floor between loudspeaker and listener.
    Place a table or a mixing desk between listener and loudspeaker,and the
    reflection will have a shorter route to travel, ie. arrive less delayed,
    and consequently cause a problemer higher up in the midrange and -
    literally - confuse the issue in terms of perceiving the spatiality in
    the recording. This stuff is what consultants living is made off ....
    O;-)

    > but people who are much smarter than me keep indicating problems
    > that i don't understand.

    Don't worry, learning is like that. More reflections is - with modesty -
    better than a few, because they will cause more, but less noticeable
    colourations, provided that they do not arrive too close to the direct
    signal from the loudspeakers and provided that the total amount of
    reflected energy is not too large, whatever that may be - one indication
    of such a problem may be that the recorded space is not suffiently
    perceived.

    A loudspeaker problem called delayed resonance is also a great destroyer
    of spatial perception if it occurs, I can still recall the listening
    experience when I listened to the large horn loudspeakers with Tannoy
    12" units that I ended up purchasing from Steen Duelund around 1977,
    reverb - especially artificially added reverb - was so much clearer
    perceived when the audio was reproduced by the compression driver than
    when reproduced by his modified 8" units with acoustic lenses. Not that
    they did not have "issues", but they were more precise in the time
    domain than oversized paper membranes.

    > i feel simultaneously smart and dumb right now. kind of strange.

    Here is an experiment for you to put things right in your understanding
    of the influence of reflections. Find the place where a mirror placed on
    wall, ceiling or floor or table allows you to see your loudspeaker in it
    when sitting in your listening chair. Place some kind of absorber on
    that location, and listen for the change in the sound.

    I don't know exactly what is available there, but there may be more
    information about this and other room issues on the website of the guy
    that sells RealTrap sound absorbers, http://www.realtraps.com. It IS
    possible to diy such stuff, and bookshelves and paintings on canvas have
    excellent acoustic mileage if well applied, but such items may come in
    handy ready made in some context.

    Mineral fiber products generally make good absorbers wisely deployed,
    but they do need to be well contained so that they do not leak out in a
    domestic - or other - environment and they can be quite unpleasant to
    work with or on, which is why getting some absorber of some kind from a
    nearby merchant can be nice if such acoustic tools are needed.

    Diffusing single sharp reflections is another way to solve issues caused
    by them, too much absorption can make a room dull and boring to listen
    in. It can get quite unsimple. You may want to subscribe to the
    newsgroup alt.sci.physics.acoustics, it is a good place to read, and
    they are a helpful lot over there.


    Kind regards

    Peter Larsen

    --
    *******************************************
    * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
    *******************************************
  13. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    <genericaudioperson@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > I was thinking if you placed studio monitors on them, it would bounce
    > the forward sound off the ceiling at an angle, and bounce the sound
    > backward off the floor.


    Yes, it *would* do that. So don't.

    The whole point of nearfield monitoring is to *reduce* the influence of
    the room on the sound -- to create a direct path from driver to ear,
    short enough that room reflections are well delayed and diminished
    compared to the direct path.

    Unless you have a VERY carefully designed room, the reflections will
    give you bad information. Standing waves will cause nasty dips and
    peaks in frequency response, and the uncontrolled and asymmetric nature
    of the reflections will screw up the stereo image.

    --
    "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
    - Lorin David Schultz
    in the control room
    making even bad news sound good

    (Remove spamblock to reply)
Ask a new question

Read More

Pro Audio Speakers Audio